T. Hoefert de Turégano Transnational Cinematic Flows: World Cinema as World Music? If one were to substitute the term ‘cinema’ for ‘music’, transferring with it some of the same foundational and conceptual ideas of world music one finds that the term does not exist in any official way in the realm of cinema. There are of course some very evident reasons why world cinema in this sense, does not exist. Nonetheless, there is a discernable contemporary cinematographic phenomenon that is not unlike that of world music. My intention is not to transfer a concept between different media as such, given the radical differences of financing, production, markets, distribution, reception, and so forth, it is rather, to better understand a particular contemporary cinematographic phenomenon by drawing on the history of world music. Of particular interest are films made by directors who are categorised with nationalities of so-called developing or Third World countries. Within this terrain my interest is in north-south, independent co-production, and a cinema that can be linked in some ways to a heritage of Third cinema.1 Third cinema is understood as a cinematographic movement, situated in time and space - the late sixties and early seventies - regrouping similar cinematographic developments in Argentina, Cuba and Brazil. Its aim was to link art and politics with liberating ideals. The movement also left traces in other regions of the world, particularly countries that gained their independence around that time. The link with Third cinema is important because as a film movement it was concerned with politics, identity and independence, issues which continue to hold relevance for many film directors linked to developing countries, and because these concerns are also among those given so much attention within the discourses of globalisation. Given the north-south collaboration as a context for this cinema we need to take into account that histories of colonialism and other types of domination do not just disappear with a date, decree or new constitution. Furthermore, because the collaboration occurs between individuals from groups with unequal positions in a global hierarchy this collaboration does not necessarily lead to intercultural cooperation. Equally so, increased quantities of visibly diverse “content” – visual or musical – do not mean that there is a qualitative change in power relations and control of that “content.” We can agree that one of the main concerns about globalisation is the tension between cultural homogenisation and diversity. For globalisation to have any substantial meaning we need to look closely at its “processes and transactions.”2 It is in this larger sense that the utility of exploring transnational cinematic flows in a more fine grain manner, takes its meaning. While my emphasis is on north-south coproductions, the world cinema phenomenon I explore here is not necessarily limited to films made by directors from 1 See for example: Jim Pines and Paul Willemen, eds., Questions of Third Cinema (London: BFI, 1989) and Roy Armes, Third World Film Making and the West (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). 2 I refer here to the article in which the political scientist David Sylvan has questioned the social science methodologies employed in the analysis of the term globalisation. David Sylvan, “Periphery, Centre, Mass: Alternative Histories of Europe’s Role in Globalisation” in Europe and Globalization edited by Henryk Kierszkowski (Basingstoke, Eng.: Palgrave, 2002). 2 these regions and one could probably find variations of this internationalising trend in other cinemas. We might consider, for example, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon by Ang Lee or some recent Bollywood films destined for Western audiences such as Lagaan by Ashuto Gowariker. Each of these examples suggests a different path of exploration within the more general realm of world cinema. These examples also differ from the category that I explore in this paper because they are made in countries where there is a long-standing, commercial film industry and history, where dependencies on non-national cinematographic infrastructures are non-existent or minimal. These are distinguishing factors separating the latter examples from the film world explored here. While some Latin American countries have industrial cinematographic traditions, they do not have the same historically sustained fiction film production existence as in parts of Asia and in India. The films in question are coproductions, independent, feature length fiction films made with relatively low budgets, generally under US $5 million. They are products of a north-south collaboration often made with public funding or related institutions, although some private televisions do invest in these productions. The films seldom have distribution contracts prior to completion and they usually circulate in international and alternative circuits, highly dependent on the recognition gained at international film festivals. They are often categorized in festivals and the markets in a national or regional way. When films made by these directors attain some more mainstream attention they are often attributed emblematic value, representing national and regional identities, becoming inscribed in an international politics of identity. Mainstream is not used here stricto sensu but rather in the sense that the films are selected at the major international film festivals such as: Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Toronto, Sundance, and more so when they obtain prizes in those festivals, or obtain distribution contracts. Likewise, in a formal sense to coproduce means to own part of the film negative. In a more loose use of the term, which I am using here, I refer to a practice where producers from two or more countries are involved in the financing and production of a film. Given that these films are often attributed an emblematic identity value it is worth exploring how the representation of identity functions through them.3 Within the debate on cultural homogenisation and diversity there is, on the one hand, a congruent perception of cultural loss and on the other hand a reaction that consists of reasserting local, national and regional identities.4 If we agree that under global integration local identities and affiliations do not just disappear, and that within the two extremes of homogenisation and of retrenching identity, it is more interesting to see how various types of identity are reconfigured and transformed.5 Within this dialectic between the loss and the assertion of identity, attachments to place and space are being redefined. Spatial location of identity is fundamental to a current understanding of cultural politics. Internationalism and geographical displacement is a broadly shared experience by an increasingly wide range of people 3 The attribution of funding in Europe for such films made by directors from these countries has often linked to a manifestation of local, national, regional, cultural identity. See for example, T. Hoefert de Turégano, “FESPACO 1999: The Cultural politics of production and francophone West African cinema" Black Renaissance/Renaissance Noire, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2000, pp.146-165; or France and Africa: The politics of cinema 1960-1995 (forthcoming). 4See for example Stuart Hall in Anthony King, ed. Culture, Globalization and the World-System (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1997). 5 Néstor García Canclini, “Will there be Latin American Cinema in the Year 2000? Visual Culture in a Postnational Era,” in Framing Latin American Cinema – Contemporary Critical Perspectives Ed. Ann Marie Stock (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), p. 256. 3 from immigrants to cosmopolitan nomads. Simultaneously, the nation state recedes as a source of identity and identification. Furthermore shared cultural space does not necessarily depend on shared geographical space and this contributes to making popular culture and increasingly important public sphere.6 Films, like music, have the ability to simultaneously undermine and reinforce our sense of place and cultural specificities become a market strategy used to attract consumers around the world. For an individual, finding ways of feeling connected to a local or national space is a far more habitual exercise than finding similar mechanisms for feeling connected to global space. Fredric Jameson proposes an aesthetic of cognitive mapping and hopes for “a pedagogical political culture which seeks to endow the individual subject with some new heightened sense of its place in the global system … the new political art (if it is possible at all) will have to hold to the truth of … the world space of multinational capital – at the same time at which it achieves a breakthrough to some as yet unimaginable new mode of representing this last, in which we may again begin to grasp our positioning as individual and collective subjects and regain a capacity to act and struggle which is at present neutralized by our spatial as well as our social confusion.”7 How then do these films participate in a global aesthetic? Before turning to the music and the films let’s briefly look at some of the ways the term world cinema has been used. It is classically considered as a cinema d’auteur or art cinema, of filmmakers who have an international reputation. It is also sometimes understood as those cinemas from around the world, which developed in resistance to – but not necessarily or only in resistance to – or in any case, trying to assert themselves within the dominant forces of a global film market. Or it is simply a way to speak of the history of cinema as in the case of the Oxford history. Many books use the term in their title, for example: The Oxford History of World Cinema,8 An Introduction to World Cinema, 9 or World Cinema: Critical Approaches.10 A similar trend occurs in the francophone realm with for example well-known film historians such as George Sadoul’s L’Histoire du Cinéma Mondiale. These books usually consecrate about 5–30% of their content to cinemas that are not in the Western European and American sphere.